The URL can be used to link to this page

96-1077 Council File # �(Y�/�� Green Sheet # � � RESOLUTION O NT PAUL, M ESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Brew and Bottle, Inc., pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300 3 (g) and in PED File No. 96-098, applied for a determination of whether a "micro-brewery" is 4 an accessory use to a "brew on premises store" located on property commonly known as 242 5 Seventh Street West, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as the SELY 25 ft of 6 NELY 1/2 of Lot 8 and SELY 12 ft of Lot 9 and of SWLY 1/2 of Lot 8 and ex NWLY 20 ft 7 for st, all of Lot 7, Block 27; Rice and Irvines Addition Blocks 26 thru 41 46 thru 53; and 8 9 WHEREAS, on June 6, 1996, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning 10 Commission held a public hearing on the application at which all persons present were given 11 an opportunity to be heard pursuant in accordance with the requirements of Saint Paul 12 Legislative Code § 64.300; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented 15 at the public hearing to its Zoning Committee, as substantially reflected in the minutes which 16 shall be incorporated herein by reference, made the following findings of fact as set forth in 17 Resolution Number 96-30 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and 18 which shall become a part of this Resolution and in which the Saint Paul Planning 19 Commission, under authority of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, denied the application for a 20 determination of similar use for a micro-brewery as an accessory use to the brew on premises 21 store at the property above described; and 22 23 WHEREAS, on June 18, 1996, the applicant filed an appeal of the decision of the 24 Saint Paul Planning Commission pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206 and 25 alleging that the Saint Paul Planning Commission erred in its finding that a micro-brewery 26 cannot be an accessory use to a brew on premises store, and 27 28 WHEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 through § 64.208 and 29 upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the 30 City of Saint Paul on July 3, 1996, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to 31 be heard; and 32 33 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, having heard all the testimony and 34 having considered the application, the report of staff, the Planning Commission record 35 minutes and the resolution of the Planning Commission does hereby; 36 37 RESOLVE, that the Planning �ommission's finding that a micro-brewery is not the 38 same or accessory to a brew on premises store providing facilities for third parties is 39 erroneous for the following reason: 40 41 The applicant's proposal to operate a "micro brewery" which would offer product for 42 sale to third parties, by using brewing equipment which was installed in conjunction 43 with applicants "brew on premises store" but which is not presently utilized, is well � 9�-ra��7 1 within the same type of use as applicant's "brew on premises store". Applicant's 2 "brew on premises store" is the only such use in the City. A zoning code definition of 3 a "micro-brewery" is presently under consideration for approval by the Planning 4 Commission and is expected to be adopted in the very near future. The proposed 5 definition will provide a zoning standard for "micro-breweries. Planning Staff advises 6 that the definition will allow this applicant to operate a "micro-brewery" at the address 7 above stated and further advised that certain conditions be imposed on the operation. 8 9 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Brew and Bottle, Inc., is in 10 all things granted subject to the following conditions: 11 12 1. That production shall be limited to 2,000 barrels of beer per year; and 13 14 2. There shall be no retail sales of brewed beer from the premises; and 15 16 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution 17 to the applicant, the appellant, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. � � � � � f�� Yeas Navs Absent Requested by Department of: a e ostrom arris uerin —� � e rar ettman � une � By� Adopted by Council• Date �� _ � , �q�� Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Certified by Council Secretary gy: .�� BY� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved by Mayor: Date �(� Council gy; �, (G 5�� By: . 9�� DE IL DA INITIATED N_ 3 6�3 6 a ��t Council 8/26/96 �iREEN SHEET P i �DEPARTMENT DIRECTORN�� CRY COIHJCIL - - INITIAUDATE �N CITY ATTORNEY CRY CLEAK Councilmember Thune �� ❑ ❑ MU IL ( ) p�pd �BUDOET DIRECTOR �FlN.8 M(i7:SERVICEB DIR. Se t. 4 19 9 6 °R�" ❑""a'oa c°R"ss�sT'�m ❑ TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAQES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SI�NATURE) "�1ON p��D` with conditions, Finalizing City Council Action taken on July 3 b� granting the appeal/of Brew & Bottle, Inc. dba Vine Park Brewery, to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a determination of r u p it to allow a micro brewery as an accessory use to a brew on premise store, �st �� RECOMI�IENOV►TIONB:Approw(A)or Rs�ct(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MU8T ANSWER THE FOLLOWINQ WlESTIONS: _PLANNINO COMMISSION _CWIt 8ERVICE(�AAMIS81�1 L Hee this p9roon/fiml eVM MIOrkld Undlr e contr6Ct fOr th18 d�plrtfllMtt? - _C�COMMmEE _ YES �NO 2, Has this person/ffrm ever bean a city smployee? —�� — YES NO _oIBTR�cr couar _ 3. ooes mis persorvNrm possess..ku�noe norm.uv aosseased by any«,rre�t ary emproyas? BuPPORTB VIRIK:N c�OUNCIL OBJECT�vE4 YE3 NO Expl�fn all yp�nsw�n on s�p�rN��hNt�nd�tt�ch to.prosn�hNt INtTUTING PROBLEM�ISBUE�OPPARTUNITY(Who.WFW.When.Whers.WhY). AD1h�NTA�OE8 IF APPRdVED: DISADVMfTiR0E8 IF APPROVED: . �Ci� f�D.�v�� AUG � 9 1996 ___...� D18ADVANTAQEB IF NOT APPROHED: TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION = C08T/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YE8 NO FUNDIHd sOURCE ACTIVITY NUM9ER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) 96—�a�� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City AtJOrney CITY OF SAINT PAUL cN�r DN;S,on Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266-8710 IS West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 � August 13 , 1996 Ms . Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Nancy: Attached please find the original, signed resolution finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council from July 3 , 1996 granting the appeal of Brew and Bottle, Inc . from a decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission. Please have the matter calendared on the appropriate City Council agenda. Thanks . �7�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney attachment DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ��f/v�� &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I�f// CITY OF SAINT PAtJL Division of Planning Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 612-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314 �� June 19, 1996 Ms.Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday July 3, 1996 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit: Appellant: BREW& BOTTLE INC., dba VINE PARK BREWERY(DAVID THOMPSON) File Number: #96-098 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit to allow a micro brewery as an accessory use to a brew on premise store. Address: 242 West 7th Street (east side between Walnut & Chesfiut) Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial vote: 14-1, 6/14/96 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Layover, vote: 7-0, 6/6/96 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the June 26, 1996 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincere , � ��1 '�.lR�� Kady Dad ez (��p� �"� City Planner Zoning Section x�C�Ol�POBLIC�ARII�i' , The Saint Paul City Councii wiil conduct a public hearing an VUed ? cc: File #96-098 � s. 1996, to conaider the appeal'of$rew 8 Bothl�t, Inc.r dba V� e Mike K2'aemeI' �ery(Davfd Thompaon),to a deciaion of the Planning Commission �`�termtnation o[siaitlar uae periait to allow aanicrv breaec��as an ae" Donna Sanders to a hrew on prerxlise sto;e at 242 West 7th Street (east aide � nut Street and Chebtn�t Skreet): � � :j�ed:June 19. 1996 • ��yr��[ri��! � l�INCY ANDER.'''OI!i . Asaiataat City Couacil Secretary _ , (Juae 21. 1996) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING �(Y�/V � &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENf � CITY OF SAINf PAtJL Division of Planning Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 612-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsrmile: 612-228-3314 � June 26, 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #95-150: BREW& BOTTLE INC. (DAVID THOMPSON) City Council Hearing: July 3, 1996 PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit to allow a micro brewery as an accessory use to a brew on premise store. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL 14-1 ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 7-0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL • SUPPORT: No one spoke. OPPOSITION: No one spoke. The West 7th/Fort Road Federation did not take a position. Dear Ms. Anderson: David Thompson (Brew & Bottle) has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission denying a determination of similar use permit to allow a micro brewery as an accessory use to the existing brew on premise store at 242 West 7th Street (east side between Walnut & Chestnut). The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on June 6, 1996. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the permit. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a vote of 14-1 on June 14, 1996. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 3, 1996. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Ken Ford Planning Administrator � KF:kd Attachments cc: City Councilmembers 9'��/6 77 �::::::::;:::.::::::::::�::::::::::. ::�{:r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::r:::: �:::��:::::::.:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.:.:::::::::::::::;.:.:.:�::::: >::;>::::::>::�..�:':`�:��.:��.<��r.::::>::»>:::::::::::: >::>��_::><.::>:::;.: ..:::::.::.�:::::>::::::;::::: APPLICATION FOR APPEAL `:::;��<`>:::::::.;:<::::;:;:::::::><�:::::>:>:;;:� .::.;:.;:.:: <.:�: :�:;:»«>:<::::�:: ::::�'i�:::��;�:<<>:�::<:>::. :.;��:.�....��...:.;:.:;:.;:;::.;:.:::;.::.;;: t::� � De artme t noPlan ' nin an d Economic Deve >:�>��3i�`:'`:::�'�::�;�::>:::.;�:':;��`��.:.<::::��::��;:>::;>;:::;::��<:::::�:::�::::::::::�::::::::�:;:::>:�` P f g lopment ��,.�+��.. ............... „...�........,....;:.::.>; Z ' . ontn Sect' 8 �j 7 �1� ,y�,� �on �( yj �"::::•:::}�}::y�:i:::i::l:f{i:i:i:'}i '•�i��I.��X1��Ci.•:.•��::::::i':','ti:i::::::i�:•:��. ...:�G.,,�i,k.l,,.,��i:�l��..::}:�:•:•:::::•:::.:}::<;:;:; �� 1100 Ci Hall Annex ty - �'::;:'•.:>::#;::';:::`��:'�'�[::>.;.:;>�.::a:::::::':>::>�:':::>::::::<';:?:::::�`:<`:';::::::�:::::::< ..: ._�:.::: :. .:. :-i•'::_;.__,�:;:::::;::.:..;:>:a:r::•.> ::.:;::::i:i:i:;2:i:i::`i::ii:::E:i:?:<:2:i:i:::?:ii:: :;:;:;:; �::::: 25 West Fourth Street �� ::.::�:.;:::::::,::.:.�:.:::::::::.::<.;:.;:.: Saint Paul MN SSI 2 , 0 �:::><:�::::>f::><�:>::::>�:::<:::::�:>:>':�<�:::':.>:>�::<:::�:>:::::::>:'»::>�::s>::::: 266-6589 e::'E>:;:``.:;`:E>::::::i:::::�:::>':.�:.:;.;:.;,>;:;;:.;:>:.>;:;.::�;:;:.:,,;:.;;;;:>:;:;.;:;,;::;::.;:. APPELLANT Name 82Qc� £ 8mt't�� vc, d.b.R• 1il��uf�i�Q,('' l3ppwP,e.H Address a��ol � � �'�i?�pT LrJPs f City�t- nAu,L St.�ZipS�{10� Daytime phone �- S� PROPERTY Zoning File Name B RP�,J f 80-ttlP �c �l�r #9 G '4 9� LOCATION Address/Location _ �yc� 3 ��'f�PPPT I��PST TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � • � Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 24�0, Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �t. n,�u,L �L,K1N,U TAIG ��n,�ss co,u _ on J u,u2 ��_� G , 19 File number: �� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an eROr in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. � See �f f�c.hed s h ee f. . � Attach additional sheet if cessa Applicant's signature . Date � /8 City agent . 2 �'��`� � Based on the following facts, I feel that the Planning Commission made an error in their findings that a micro brewery can not be an accessory use to a brew on premise store. The principle use of the property is as a brew on premise store (BOP). The applicant Brew& Bottle Inc., d.b.a. Vine Park Brewery(VPB) is operating in a B-3 zoning district as was already determined appropriate by the planning commission. The store's equipment can accommodate brewing six 15 gallon batches at one time and one large batch (60 to 100 gallons). Since there is no demand for the large equipment from the public, this portion is proposed to be used to brew beer during off-peak times that could be sold directly to local bars and restaurants. According to the staff report,this is a reasonable extension of an existing BOP store and an appropriate accessory use. There would be no sales directly to the public. According to state law, VPB, may operate as a micro brewery and brew up to 2,000 barrels of intoxicating malt liquor per year. Breweries (brew pubs) are already allowed in zoning district B-3 and are allowed to brew up to 3,500 barrels of intoxicating malt liquor per year. The state of Minnesota, Liquor Control Division, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms have already consented to allow a micro brewery within a BOP store at this location. The amount of traffic generated by this use is similar to a typical retail or service • establishment. The proposed accessory use will not generate a need for additional off- street parking. A BOP is permitted in a B-3 zoning district. Provided that the amount of beer produced is restricted,this proposed use is an appropriate accessory use to the existing BOP store. The accessory use is appropriate in a general business area which is intended to provide sites for more diversified types of businesses than those in B-1 and B-2 and is intended for location along major traffic arteries or adjacent to community business districts. • 3 � . q�-�� city of saint paul planning commission resolution f ile number 96-30 �tE? _ June 14, 1996 WHEREAS, BREW AND BOTTLE INC., file # 96-098, has applied for a Determination of Similar Use under the provisions of Section 64.300(g) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to determine if a micro brewery is an accessory use to a brew on premise store, on property located at 242 7TH STREET WEST, legally described as the SELY 25 ft of NELY 1/2 of Lot 8 and SELY 12 ft of Lot 9 and of SWLY 1/2 of Lot 8 and ex NWLY 20 ft for st, all of Lot 7, Block 27; Rice and Irvines Addition Blocks 26 thru 41 46 thru 53; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6, 1996, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the • following findings of fact: 1. A micro brewery for sale off-site is not the same or accessory to a brew on premise store providing brewing facilities for third parties; 2. The determination of similar use in these circumstances raises ambiguity as to the definition of micro brewery in the zoning code; 3. Planning commission finds that the determination of similar use will allow a use that is allowed in.a less restrictive zoning district to now be permitted in a more restrictive zoning district. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Determination of Simi�ar Use to determine if a micro brewery is an accessory use to a brew on premise store and permitted on property at 242 7TH STREET WEST is hereby denied. moved by �rton � sE;conded by in favor 14 � � against�� 4 Zoning File #96-098 • Page Two BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs Planning Division Staff to prepare a study recommending a definition of micro brewery and the appropriate zoning district in which a micro brewery should be permitted, with the goal of recommending these changes to the Planning Commission and City Council. • . . , • . . :..:::_.��. ; .. 5 . � � QRAFT �� %�� M I hU'f�J ob �'h� Jai n'�' t�p�,U � ��A(nh.�Vl� Gorr I�►�,i SS i ol� • a�d �Uh.e, t�1 � 11�0 iii. Has potential for offering broader housing choices than the "Current Trends." Some discussion ensued. ..,:.,..............:...:....:...,..,:..::..:..::.:.,�:.:::..::.::..:::...:....::.:,.:::.:,,::::.:.:.::.::::::.:::.::.�......:::..,....:.,.,,:;:.:•<.::<.;�.::.:<::��:.,..::::,::::::,::.::.�:::::::::.:::::. TviOTIOi� ;:;C:o:mimissi�;n.er::Ma��o��o�� pprova� t�f tlre reso(utc�n fo ado f th�se ...�...::>:,;::...: ::::...::::::::::::::.::�::..}:::�.v:v:::.vv•. •.�:y...:.w::.:::::::w:v::.rv::::•:n:::xti??ti?4i�'•:•::::::.�•w:i:i:::::y:;:.k{�;;.}}::i.;::{t:.i:iiiiii'f.i':.i::.:.::.:..:.... .. :.::::::7\:.�r .:.::::.:..:.:.:. ..: :.:::::n}:.:::::. :..�.:.::.•:::..:: .:::v:::::n...::::.:..:.. :: :.�:..::;!.:S' '.::.:�::.:4i.?:n:.:ip:.>y:;Y:Yli:�..:.::.�.::::.: �ecoii�rii:��idac4�c�s aiid fQr�uar� them;;�Eo tE�e G4t� �oun��l' a�d �/Iayo�-fdr Ehet�'� rov�� v�iCJi >:: . . ,....>..r..,...,,.::...:.::.:::::::::...::::.:::.::>:::::>:<::.>.:...v.,......................................h...,.....,,...,............:h:..:.::::r:::::.,.::PP.::::::::::::::;:.:.::.;;:�:.:;:: $.:�:::;:;::::;:::<;�.>::::>w::::::>:::�»:;�::<.,::.::.•.::.::.::...::.;:•.;:::::::..:...,...........: . �art�ed;:;ur��n:�rn:ou�E�r;.�n:�a;;v:otce»�?ofe: >:.>;:::»:.>:.;»::;>:;:>h,,.........;;.:<.;;�..:�.::.:....�x:v::;::::::;:»::>::;::;s:::>::::::�: ***************+***�*�******** Back to: � IV. Zoning Committee � #96-098 Brew and Bottle Inc - Determination of Similar Use to determine if a micro bre�very is an accessory use to a brew on premise store (242 W 7th St). Commissioner Morton stated that the original motion from the Zoning Committee was an indefinite layover to no later than August 31, 1996, in order to initiate a zoning amendment �vhicli defined a micro brewery; and this had been agreeable to the applicant at the time of the Zoning Committee meeting. She then refened to the letter from the applicant received today t}iat stated he had changed his mind in regard to the layover to August 31. :,.....:......:,..........:....,..,,>:...,<..., ....:.... . .,. }'C.'k^'Nw?^.,:^i•'J.:?�ii'�:r•tiii:'/.:.}nv}:(.:.};.}:Qi};.:t.}:,xi:.. ..h:•iii:l".:i.};{{im�;.}}x}�:�^t};C�:^�dF:;.J.'y^Y..,v,rlv v;y3y}�;{.}'f,r�i:}};...,:}}ii::{.yp} . 4�'Ib:I�:� ��mr�t�:sscan�r Mor��mc�;u��;:ti��;;`hrs i�ern��.€a�c�Qu��t�the>rtexi��tfin : .,:�:.::>.:.:,..:.,,..:.,. .::f:::::.:::.:.«::. .�.>,.. .,:f.:::::.:.:,.::� :.�::::.::::::::.::.::�:::::::....... ,. ...:::.;�.;:;:.:>;;�<.;.<.<.:.;::.;;..;..;:>:.:::�::::•.::�.:::::;.:::::.........,..... �•�, . .:::::::::::: ,::::::.�r.:::;«.:.�:.�::�.;:..�::.::::.::._ . ..::,.�.�:.:::... .: : a:,,+�r.::k;t..,fiF;....>:;:,... . ,::......,....... ...:...:....,......�:..:::•:::......:•::.:.'.'�:::>'. :..:;$. ,.;•:.:::.::.:.::.:::.:.i�::.:.x:::::.;>:.,.�.:�•::::.:::.>:.::`::.:?:::':ns:.:�':..::....::<...:.....•�<:::.:.;.a..,:;..:q::`•:,.,,.i... • �oxr►cn��e me��r;J��2Q> ��96; �be mqt��n wa�s��ed.by:x�olt?mr�St�#�er�'ae1d; . . ; ... ......... .......... ........ .. ... . . .....�....... Commissioner Vaught announced that he would vote against the motion of layover to June 20. He said that his understanding is that the deadline for action by the City on this rriatter is June 27, 1996, so sending it back to the Zoning Committee doesn't make it possible for the Planning Commission to act because the next Planning Commission meeting is not until June 28, 1996. By that time, the permit will have gone into effect by default. He asked staff to confirm the deadline date of June 27 which staff did. � Commissioner Morton said she had spoken to Mr. Warner, who felt that in as much as the applicant changed his mind after the Zoning Committee meeting, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Zoning Committee. Mr. �Vacner stated that these issues are not clearly defined by law; and, the City could use the argument that the applicant changed his mind to enable the Zoning Committee to gain more time for consideration, an extension. Commissioner Vaught said he would prefer to take some action today. Since there is nothing in the code that says an applicant cannot change his mind regarding agreeing to an extension, he does not want to take the chance on this permit automatically going into effect on June 27, 1996. • Commissioner Kramer asked whether the Planning Commission could extend this issue for another 60 days on its own accord. Mr. Warner answered that they could not until August 1, �:. .1996. � _ . . , �. . �D 5 �RA�T � Commissioner Field commented that he is not convinced tliat the applicant did not understand • I�is options at the time of the Zoning Committee meeting. He is concerned that an applicant may verbally agree to something at a meeting, and then, at a later date; rescind tl�at agreement, forcing tl�e Committee into a very a�vkward position. Commissioner Vaught replied that the statute being ambiguous is tlie real problem. Sending tl�is issue back to tl�e Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission runs that risk tl�at it will be approved any�vay, without any action whatsoever. The reason the Committee asked for a delay in the first place is specifically because "micro brewery" has no definition in the Saint Paul Zoning Code, and to define it as an "accessory use" to a brew on premise store tortures the,definition of accessory use and the definition of a bre�v on premise store. In a micro brewery, beer is brewed on site by the o�vner of the facility; sale is done off-site. It's a commercial bre�very on a smaller scale. Re�ular brewing is permitted in an industrial zone. In a bre�v pub the bre�v is for sale on site. Bre�v pubs are allowed in B-2 zones. Any bre�very �vith sale off-site is much more intrusive to a neighborhood than either a brew pub or a brew on pre►nise store. Micro brewino should be defined first, as a matter of policy. It shou(d be differentiated from "brewing" which is allowed in an industrial zone. Mr. Vaught said this is why he suggested to the applicant, and the applicant agreed, to allow us the time to define micro brewing properly. He added that he does not think the applicant was confused at all, so he feels strongly that the Commission should deal with this issue today. Commissioner Kramer noted that he tends to agree with everything Mr. Vaught has said, with the observation that if the Commission denies this request, and the applicant appeals it to the City Council, our input might be lessened. • Commissioner Schwichtenberg stated tliat he thinks the Commission should reject the application, and advise the applicant to re-apply �vhen an appropriate definition is in tact. He will vote against the motion to layover. He also suggested that the motion include a statement urging Planning staff to prepare amendments to the Zoning Code to incorporate micro breweries as soon as possible. Commissioner Vaught accepted this as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Gordon stated he agrees with Commissioner Schwichtenberg's comments, and added that the Commission consider Commissioner Vaught's analysis, in which case, if the applicant were to appeal to the City Council, the City Council would know that the Planning Commission is studying the underlying issue, and would be less likely to overrule us. He will also vote aoainst the motion to layover. Commissioner Field commented that he is now leaning to vote in opposition to the motion which he initially seconded. He requested that someone research the possibility of having a form for a layover to be signed during a hearing, so that the written request is available at the hearino, and so that we avoid loose ends as these in the future. ��uo:a:a+.:.,�,•,..:.r,.va.�:<:x+�. • v::w�r;;•.:•,.:xr.r.•:��.+.• •; �;n.,,,t.,...;}+aw...ax,. . +sg;r.t{a»:�fr.,r.;�,c�.�;cyr.,�..M . e:��n�`:�vtyn-::.. :��'�;��:e��f:��<:�e�uQ?..��.,,.wc�:�;�.F�.�w9�:�;e�::�a �"�:��a�:��. "��i`�{�"� f � :Y�?.� �.,/t'..?}.;��•° :xY"�''..'.•�:�::s.F�"��q�r!�;?c�Y".�."7Tt3>.4�:•s.�..��.<�:.,�'M,.'hc�,'?�?��'�,�u....V � � .,> `;��`°�r:'�stK,,. {;tf'�Ef��'k,�,fStFi:'�� ' �,LP,.j>��,e'�,.•f�,��:'(f�4X�'S?S!��,;:1��::� '•'�C'�C'i,��S�S '•;;:,',�y Cf ':r�" • '.vf�;u3;:�r:s�.�:,{0�,�,t3�y�€ #'.'t�.cS.r;%v�:::^��.: %u)),.?• o�r,, � ,�fi�;r.< , �e t• .c.�.>: `,`�`3e;� ,c�,;,., .: "3`•�•• �•#?::��'.',�.'�.' '''')'o�;:i:.�.,��%?:�{y.M1,ti-0y'•.4*F�r':��:�••%::i:�":r;.'.. :';•r�:;��r�� .�:�?�,��'��?��C{e��,��4��f.n�„��, �I��A�`��I��!�"�,;:��:.��.�?��`�'�> x v ty�• r.r�i^;u,.wr.�..:,c:4:.:r.e,: •Ay�y.• .• f{..:,wx :� a•:Fx n^ttnxo xx+,c.mroaxexr. ,xxeo! a�:}o�imx.:r.�r?«xa»:�r., .!!�•tar+•:?w.. ��`��::: ...;.. �� ;�. ��.��`r��.�":�};n:�i��`�y�o::�:e��.��i;�::�� '��°�''°�;p°��: a � ,:��,s�ri�A�r � M �n{,��'i`•a:,i4i.'r.., . +�,. . 3'2,�i'.{a^.s•�, .�`Y.•.+}�rc y3*��ri +{a�. �,� i�.y1rl1yG•�.�iLf�:`..' �•.� ,..}��. ��''j��6.�:; :•.{��c�',Y�,:[�p�',�.�,�(�>'.�i�7a��;��:;,�.Pv;• .�::: s :��` .. �� .�� :`,-��i J #/� > . � .Y'�.n�(�� 'r ,j 4 (�� '�)iCNi:�•'f L:�'.. � •.Y. Z '��'.C�'� .O'� ??Y.{)b. • � - �4f' �i' ''�•d'.� .�Yi'i/j �`��f•i r , ( T '��.,. . � t. �{� �:.�} � }�. . .:.� � � ♦ ��p��"�� `�� :��}!t� �� xaF� �� {�i�,x�r:. . �. � �:.� e. -e��:�'�:'�`�:a� .�.v%iw��i:i�Y!!� �:4'��. i/+:��ii✓H:�.hJF'.5%id�Iff2�f/.-04�i:w%6C4'ri'v'�i�nu'O�3Gv�Skv�ii��iES��++ fAV "��Yrx��r}%}j'i�%yi'll.tilliN•.��::G'.i : ?,. 6 L 9��d�� C�RAFT ...: 'e:.>� .,.;,Y..,:?i:4:vY,y::.:...:..... • ,.. :..:..,.:�� :.,::::. ;:.:::::.;.:�.,:.;� :,:::... use in th.�._.c�rcu�St�lceS,.r&�se;�am�t U��f,.:;aS:;fQ:;t.�ke tl��r#`i��4Jt'::;of;i?;i.e.cro bre�re #n th� �octt�?� . ........,. ,.....,::.:::. �3''...::::::..:::.�::::..:. : ............... 8 Y g .:::.:::.;:.;>:.:�.:,. >::::. �odex aG�d �) Planrtin��o►nmtsstor� find� th�t th� d�te�inafio� �f stmtfar us��:tl aila�w a use . ..:..-.Lir....�... :.�....:.:. ..i�...S:.:.:.:::.::r.h.....� :�.�:.e..:y::.>..:n..:�.:.:}:::..�.::...%:.:.......::::<:::::,fi.iii::i:'.}4.::.:�..�.:�u. .::{. .:f..,.:.a...�.:.::.:s.::.:.:::...:':..r:.:.�>•:.::.: ':.:ti... #l�at ts aLIO��S� tn 2� I�ss TeStr�cEive�nt� d��t�'tc� Eo n�t�v t�� tmt�fed �n a>mose reSf�i�tr�e ........................>........:..................,.....::.::::.;::::;;;.........,.:::::::....g:::.�:::::::.:..:. .n.:.::..,..�::..:,.,�.:..:.,.,....,..:.:....:.:.::.:�.:::.v:::::::::::::.::. .:::.;:;;:::�:::::::.;:..,.....,:.... ..:.,.. ............... .:,.:::,.::: �ontri�:dtsi[:iCt: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mardell. Cotnmissioner Geisser commented that it is not clear to her �vhether the applicant was or �vas not aware of l�is options wlien he chose to write tl�e letter. She added that tl�e ordinary citizen might really not be aware of his options, and also may be confused and ner��ous, especialiy under the pressures of a public hearing before a board, and under the pressure of makin; a decision on the spot. She added that even though she has heard Commissioners today say over and over again that they are sure the applicant knew exactly �vhat he was doing, she befieves the Commission should try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt. Commissioner Vaught contended that he did understand Commissioner Geisser's point, but did not kno�v how to resolve it. The real problem is the position the Commission is put into by tl�e 60-day la�v. He argued that although a decision did have to be made on the spot, tlie Committee went to great lengths to assure the applicant that this was a voluntary action on his part. Commissioner Kramer said he agrees �vith Commissioner Geisser's observation, in general, but tl�e letter is very clear, and in the last couple of paragraphs, the applicant essentially says that "to forbid it would constitute discrimination," and "therefore it is now my decision to request that the Planning Commission make their determination in this case without the additional • delay as previously discussed." Commissioner Vaught added that, as the maker of the motion, he wants to make it clear that he is not against locating a micro brewery at this location; he would like to be able to do it, but he can't do it using this vehicle. ......:n::v.:th?^i:•'��}:i<:;}:r,:»..{'{vr?nyr.+N. •;.}}�;x•�{.`,�:::M::;i+.l,'i^:•:?}^••n�}:}i^.:3}?,w„K4.'?p?'�:•r'•:$'}}:^:Q,v,;i....},•.M1Cx�{:F.ii:{4Yi'�:fihi:!{+y.:;';;�:tiii%;:;):,:.:ti•i�;•}M�dM1fM:•;+X•;.'?;{nyY,W.,�L �e:.m�t�on��t�e�oo�t��e��th�re. u�x�;:f�zr�>de��sn�tt,{�.,��r:4-�s��af�r,use'��r b�.� �.:?'ii:v v.�,... nvKt•::•:\ �r::.�.•Yr�,'�.,�.; .A .G•n'... .,•{<�{i�,i..,�.-:Sr•:•• �$,r:�;d. r.4..,, ,;.,:.:<:.:..::.,,...:•::�<,•::<•::.�..:::•...:.;.......:.<;.:;.;.;.;;•;::....::.;;•:.......,..'�'$....�...., .v,._.... �.... r�t,•..,..,.,.:::�>�«<:.�..:;�::, ..� ...y:....e.........r. � n F e �.�.. :..: :>::>.::E~'::::'; .�g'. •:.. . :'CS .�.YCe'�...">':;'N.:��:� a��:�ss� €�s r� a.:�r��.::hQ er��s �t�r a�2��x�.�:.7fh.�fx��.:.:.::cn.e..d.:4�.:�.�:o..:.:.::.:c��:�af::�:::: ::::>::��:.::::..:?€.Y..,.:......................�..............,.:p:::....:,:,.._::::::::::,n<�......�,..................:::,..::.�..,.,::�,4.�:,,.,,.:.::.,.:.�..>:::::.,..::..:::.,K.:::,.::,.,v.:�...::.,..:k..r.��..�:.:. ..........,...,.................. .... .....� ..............,... �a:,l�� n;;::<:>::.: VIII. Task Force Reports No reports. IX. Old Business None. X. Ne�v Business Planning Downtown: An informational report on planning and related studies undenvay for the downtown area - (Lucy Thompson) • Ms. Thompson brought to the Commission a short handout and a color-coded map of progress efforts in downtown Saint Paul and the riverfront. The summary includes planning work, studies, and actual projects that are going on. Ms. Thompson briefly went through the handout with the Planning Commission, highlighting status, progress and timelines. : �� , MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JUNE 6, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy, Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Rttorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division. ABSENT: Gurney, excused Time: 3 :37 - 4:35 p.m. , The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson. BREW & BOTTLE INC. ; 242 7th Street West; east side between Walnut & Chestnut: #96-098; Determination of Similar Use. To determine if a micro brewery is an • accessory use to a brew on premise store. Kady Dadlez, Planning Division staff, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staff recommended approval based on findings 1 through 3 and subject . to_ three conditions outlined in the staff report. The West 7th/Ford Road Federation does not intend to take a position on the determination of similar use application. Commissioner Field asked how the beer brewed in the beer on premises store would be differentiated from the micro brewery beer. Ms. Dadlez said they can be distinguished by their separate brewing equipment. � She said the brew your own beer can be brewed by 15 gallons; where the larger equipment for the micro brewery beer is between 60-100 gallons. Mr. Thompson has six 15 gallon kettles and one 60-100 gallon kettle. She said that since his brew on premises operation has been underway that no one has been interested in using the 60-100 gallon kettle and that the large kettle will be the only kettle used for micro brewery ,beer. - Commissioner Field asked for clarification that a brew on premise customer interested in using the larger kettle would not be permitted to use it. Ms. Dadlez said that was correct, and that she believed that fairly stringent controls by the federal and state government will be imposed prohibiting . kettles used for micro brewery beer from being used for brew on premise beer. Commissioner Chavez questioned the district council's position. Ms. Dadlez reported that the West 7th/Fort Road Federation doesn't intend to take a position, and that the community organizer had unofficially expressed that this is a good business on the avenue and if the requested action would help the business to stay there they would support it. Commissioner Chavez asked for the rationale behind the limit of 2,500 barrels per year that the micro brewery shall brew stated in condition no. 3 of the staff recommendation. ' � � Ms. Dadlez responded that she understood from Mr. Thompson that 2;500 barrels would be the likely limit imposed by the State and pointed out that Mr. Thompson doesn't believe he has the capacity to brew more than 1,000-1,500 barrels. • �; Q . q�-ia7 � • Commissioner Vaught asked staff to clarify the purpose of condition no. 3 of the staff recommendation that: °The micro brewery use shall be accessory to the brew on premises store. ° Ms. Dadlez explained that the principal use is the brew on premise and that micro brewery should be accessory and should the applicant decide that the brew on premise operation is not lucrative he would not be allowed to turn his operation completely into a micro brewery. She pointed out that currently the only portion of the code that speaks of alcoholic beverages says it needs to be located in I-2 and that perhaps the code should be looked at more specifically to make a determination of where micro breweries should be located, but for purposes of dealing with this application she addressed it as an accessory use. Commissioner Vaught said that if there is something that makes it a micro brewery, as opposed to a brew on premises store with a micro brewery as an accessory use, then he felt it ought to be quantified rather than qualified, as it was his opinion that just attaching a condition that a micro brewery shall be accessory to a brew on premises store doesn't necessarily provide guidance. Commissioner Vaught suggested that Mr. Thompson's operation could � essentially become a micro brewery if he had no customers and he only brews in the large kettle. Commissioner Vaught asked what City regulations exist with respect to where • mi'cro breweries can be located. Ms. Dadlez said that micro breweries can be located in I-2 zoning districts. She differentiated a micro brewery from a brew pub, where beer is being brewed in restaurants for consumption on-site only. ' � Commissioner Vaught asked if a brew on premises store is currently required to be licensed. Ms. Dadlez responded that a license is required for a brew on premises store but was not certain whether a micro brewery required an additional license. David Thompson, 378 Summit, owner/applicant, spoke. Mr. Thompson said that no specific license is required by the City for a brew on premise store other than they are consiclered a Class C Grocery Store. For the addition of the micro brewery, Mr. Thompson said that the Health Department requires the license be upgraded; as does the Department of Agriculture's Food Division; and a license will be required by the City. Mr. Thompson reviewed for Mhe committee where he was at in the approval � process with the State and Federal governments. He explained that as there was no law that pertained to this specific kind of store'that it was necessary for him to draft a bill, it was introduced by Representative Dawkins, some reworking of it was necessary and that it was near to becoming law. He reviewed that the preliminary work for the federal government has been completed and federal approval will be forthcoming upon the State's approval. Mr. Thompson submitted a letter detailing this for Committee's review. Commissioner Vaught addressed the issue of the precedence that allowing Mr. Thompson to use a brew on premise store also as a micro brewery sets. Vaught asked for clarification that a brewery which brews beer on premises �for sale off-premises can first be located in an I-2 zone. A brew pub which brews on premises for consumption on premises can first be located where? _ _ • _ . .. .. .. . ._ . . . ..� 2 � Ms. Dadlez response was that a brew pub which brews on premises for • consumption on premises can probably first be located in B-2, as it presumably would be in a restaurant, and a brew on premises store can presently be located in a B-3. Commissioner Chavez asked Mr. Thompson to elaborate on what kinds of regulations exist regarding standards for the cleaning and maintenance of his equipment. Mr. Thompson said inspections were conducted and the Health Department has approved his process and it is classified as a Class C grocery store. Commissioner Field asked what percentage of Mr. Thompson's revenues in his business plan are projected to be derived from the micro brewery operation, as opposed to the brew store. Mr. Thompson has projected 20-25� of his gross revenues to be from the micro brewery operation. Commissioner Field asked for a legal opinion in definition of accessory use, asking if the committee could add as a condition that the micro brewery only operates in one of the kettles. Mr. Warner agreed that this could be stated as a condition. Mr. Thompson pointed out that State and the Federal guidelines specifically state that he can only use the one particular kettle for brewing beer for sale, and that he will also be required to separate his rooms for the beer for . sale, versus the brew on premise beer; as well as different size fermentation vessels. Commissioner Field asked if it were possible that some of the smaller kettles � could be used for the micro brewery. Mr. Thompson said that they could not very easily be used, as they are not large enough to do the size they would need to fill up a keg. Mr. Thompson displayed and reviewed large photos illustrating the kettles used in his operation. Commissioner Vaught requestecl that the applicant provide a copy for the official record of the letter he submitted for commissioners' review which expresses the opinions of Rep. Dawkins and Sen. Solen that Chapter 348.33 of NII�7 Statutes'when it was passed authorizes brew on premise for home use stores. He said the law also contemplates that there might be sale to customers if an appropriate liquor license was held, either on the premises or off the premises. This was dated May 31, 1996, from Fred Peterson from the Division of Liquor Control. - However, Commissioner Vaught said the letter did not determine the question with respect to whether brewing for sale (even on a micro-level) which is now allowed only in I-2 zone, ought to be allowed in a B-3 zone, when any kind of brewing for sale is currently only allowed in an I-2 zone. He questioned what kind of a precedent the committee would be setting by saying that a micro brewery might exist in a B-3 zone and brew beer for sale off-premises, where currently a brewery can only exist in an I-2 zone, without the micro attached to it and how does the committee differentiate. - � Commissioner Vaught said that he might well be guided by whether the City Council intends to issue a license for this particular premises to brew beer and that he would prefer that if he was going to do this, that he doesn't like � the attachment as an accessory use to a brew on premises store but would 3 �� 9� ��7 • rather that the commission define a micro brewery as something other than a brewery, or define it in a way that limits moving a brewery such as Minnesota Brewing Company, into a B-3 zone on Grand Avenue. Commissioner Vaught said that before taking action on the request that he would like to see what the City Council decides about whether a license would be required to avoid establishing such a precedent as he is concerned what affect such action might have on existing breweries located in I-2 zones, and whether or not they might be able to define themselves in such a way that they would ba an accessory use. Mr. warner said the only precedent he could foresee would be classic equal protection arguments where if it is done for this applicant and the next person comes in and meets all the qualifications. Commissioner Field also spoke of concern regarding precedence. He suggested that B-3 zoning likely is to involve less trucking and transportation of materials than B-2. It concerned him that without definition of "micro brewery�� in the code that the establishment of a precedent may create a problem if a future proposal comes in proposing to produce considerably more barrels per year. Commissioner Vaught said he.could vote to support the proposal if micro brewery was specifically defined in the code, and it was either listed as an ' allowed use in a B-3 zone; an allowed use subject to a special condition in a B-3 zone; or allowed use accessory to a brew on premises store allowed in a B- 3 zone, so as to prohibit breweries beyond a certain size. However, unless that language is inserted into the code he could not support it, as he felt simply defining it as an accessory use to a brew on premises store leaves too � many unanswered questions as to what might happen in the future. � Commissioner Vaught moved a two-week layover to allow staff to draft a definition of "micro brewery" for insertion into the code. Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, said that after the first similar use the zoning code was amended and brew on premises was done as a minor zoning amendment. He said that language would need to be updated to take into account what the applicant has requested,doing and that to do this would take time and the minor zoning text amendment process would need to be followed and it was determined that a longer period of time than two weeks would be needed to amend the zoning code. Commissioner Chavez reviewed for the applicant the 60 day law requirement as well as the necessity for the committee to obtain a written request by the applicant for an extension of time, if he is so agreeable to allow the staff further study. Mr. Thompson reiterated that the State places a limit of 2,500 barrels per year on a micro brewery. Commissioner Field said that if the definition of a micro brewery does eventually become greater than 2,500 barrels per year that it could require a larger truck and a lot more commerce than is anticipated in a B-3 zone. He suggested the a stipulation for the application of no more than 2,500 barrels per year, or. the amount stipulated .in the City code. Commissioner Vaught said he could not -support such a motion as he felt it "didn't put the horse in front of the cart. �� ' _ _ _ .. . . � _ _ '. �_ : . . 4 lL Staff reviewed the process which would be required to do such a minor zoning � text amendment. The amendment would need to be written; there would be a 30 day notice period; a public hearing would be held; and it would then go to the Planning Commission and on to the City Council for four readings. Commissioner Vaught said that without the definition sections in the zoning code and without rigidly defining when this can be done in a B-3 zone he could not support the proposal. He said he could support it if given the necessary time by the applicant to put it in its proper form. Commissioner Vaught withdrew hia motion to layover for two weeks. Chair Morton addressed Mr. Thompson and asked whether he would agree to request an extension of time in writing for his application. Mr. Warner reviewed the alternative ways to proceed. He said the applicant could decide to withdraw his application with the understanding that the commission would take whatever actions necessary to make the changes to the zoning code. The committee would have the option to take a 60 day extension, , however 60 days did not appear to be enough time for staff to complete the minor zoning text amendment. ' Commissioner Vaught asked how long the process would take to address the concerns stated above to the point where if they weren't passed were • su�ficiently assured of passing, so that the committee might move ahead with the application. Ms. Dadlez responded that in September or November the zoning text amendments would be officially adopted by the City, published in the legal ledger, and affected. Commissioner Vaught said he would not insist that the ordinance be passed and � published and the 30 days be passed after that but would be satisfied to move this application along at the same time that the amendments to the zoning code moved along. He asked when the zoning text changes could be prepared for submission for the committee for submission for the Planning Commission for submission to the City Council. - Ms. Dadlez responded July 18 as the earliest possible date. Commission vaught asked Mr. Thompson to agree not necessarily to a delay for consideration by the committee but to delay for final action on his application, of August 31, 1996, which he suggested should allow time for all that needs to be done to move the matter forward. He said the matter could come back to the committee before then but that August 31 would be the final date for action on his application by the City Council, if it goes to the City Council. ' Commissioner Vaught expounded on the 60 day requirement and the necessity for the committee to either approve the application as it is within the 60 day period or deny it, for if the committee doesn't that it goes into effect automatically. He said he thought Mr. Thompson's proposal to be an appropriate use at that site, but that the committee is concerned about what it means with respect to other things. He requested that he consent to a delay in writing, with Mr. Thompson's alternative being that the committee either has to vote for or against his application at this point. Mr. Thompson said it was unclear to him what the best decision for him to make ' was on his behalf. • 5 �3 �6��77 • Ms. Dadlez reviewed the process and pointed out Mr. Thompson's options. If Mr. Thompson asks for a vote today the Zoning Committee woiald make a recommendation on his application and the recommendation would go to the Planning Commission for its decision of whether to approve or deny. The Planning Commission decision is subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days of the commission's decision. However, Mr. Thompson could choose to suspend the application and allow staff to assemble the language which commissioners discussed to change the law. Commissioner Kramer ascertained that the determination of similar use application is appealable. He noted that if the zoning code were changed, the action needed may no longer be a determination of similar use and asked whether Mr. Thompson might be requested to file a different application. Ms. Dadlez responded that as a result of the zoning text amendments that Mr. Thompson may not need an application. Commissioner Vaught suggested that upon completion of the zoning text amendments the committee could stylize the applicant's request accordingly. Commissioner Wencl established that Mr. Thompson was currently operational only as a brew on premises store, and asked Mr. Thompson when he projected his micro brewery business to be operational. - Mr: Thompson said he was ready to begin just as soon as the necessary governmental approvals have been given. He said that if he were to get approval from the State within the next couple of days the federal government would be done the following week. He pointed out that commencing operation would enable him to begin operating on a profit, which he is not doing on the ' brew on premise store only. Mr. Thompson said that what is best for him is • what he'll agree with, and that if it required the suggested delay of the deadline of August 31, 1996 he would agree to that. Chair Morton said that a letter from him requesting layover to August 31, 1996 would be necessary. Commissioner Vaught clarified that the committee cannot require the layover and that Mr. Thompson has to agree to do that. Mr. Thompson said he would agree to a delay to August 31, 1996 and that he would submit that in writing. Commissioner Vaught moved an indefinite layover of final action to be no later than August 31, 1996, and he moved that the matter be postponed to the first practical date which the Zoning Committee can conaider amendments to the Zoning Code defining a micro-brewery and reaolving other issues with respect to location of the same in the context of minor zoning amendments. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion carried on a voice vote of 7 to 0. Submitt d by: Approved by: � KQ d�� -. _ Kady Da lez G1 s Morton Chairperson • 6 . . �4 VINE PARK BR�EWERY . • 242 WEST 7TH STREET ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 - 612.228.1355 PHONE - 612.228.1358 FAX THE FUN PLACE TO BREW YOUR OWN BEER REC�IV�� 12 June 1996 JUN 121996 Z�� Saint Paul Planning Commission I 100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota SS 102 Dear Planning Commission Members, In reference to File#96-098, Determination of Similar Use, Brew&Bottle Inc. and my • appearance at the June 6th Zoning Committee meeting, I respectfully submit the following information. . I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for my lack of understanding. I was unsure whether to ask for an extension or call for a vote. I have now had the opportunity to deliberate the issues, discuss it with others, and also clazify the facts in question. 1)According to Minnesota Liquor Statute,Chapter 340A, Subd. S(i), micro-breweries aze allowed to brew up to 2,000 barrels of malt liquor per year (not 2,500 barrels as previously mentioned in the Staf�'Report). 2)Although we are located within zoni.ng district B-3, the city already allows breweries (specif`ically Brew Pubs) to operate within both B-2 and B-4 zoning districts.Brew Pubs are allowed to brew up to 3,500 barrels per year. 3)In our case, operating a brewery as an accessory use within a Brew-On-Premise store (BOP) is a matter of economics. Due to the extremely large investment needed to open a BOP,over $300,000, it is unlikely that there will be many additional stores of this nature. And it has become apparent that it will be very dif�'icult to operate a BOP without the accessory use as a brewery. • �� ql��7 • Page 2 4)Even though other breweries in the state are not so restricted, we have consented to operate under restricted hours of operation. This restriction is ostensibly placed on us by the Minne- sota Department of Public Safety, Division of Liquor Control, to separate the brewery opera- tion from that of the BOP.This will, although unfairly, restrict us from producing malt liquor for sale while home brewers are brewing their beer. It is my opinion that to forbid this similar use permit would constitute discrimination and indicate that unique, new businesses do not have much of a chance in St.Paul. We have been cleared by both the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms and the State Liquor Control Division to proceed with brewery operations.Therefore, it is now my decision to request that the Planning Committee make their determination in this case without the additional delay as previously discussed. . Thank you in advance for your cooperation.We look forward to your decision, and hope that we can work together to attract new visitors so that they can experience the city of St. Paul. If you have any further questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 228-1355. Sincerely, �,A•�./ (X(�1/ � David W. Thompson President � ►6 Andy Dawkins � Minnesota State Representative • District 65A - � �� . House of Ramsey County -� - ` Representatives Irv Anderson,Speaker COMMITTEES: TAXES-VICE CHAIR; SALES AND INCOME TAX DIVISION;JUDICIARY; HOUSING;CAPITAL INVESTMENT May 31, 1996 Mr. Fred Peterson Division of Liquor Control Department of Public Safety 444 Cedar Street St. Paul MN 55101 Dear Mr. Peterson: The purpose of this letter is to express legislative intent regarding Laws 1995, chapter 198, section 6, now codified as Minnesota Statutes, section 340A. 33, authorizing brew-on-premises stores. I understand that a question has arisen in that regard. This law was intended to allow such a store to operate in Minnesota and allow its customers to brew beer on the premises for personal • and home use. The law states that "the owner of a brew on premises store shall not be considered a brewer, manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of intoxicating liquor if the owner complies with this section and with Code of Federal Regulations, title 27, part 25 subpart L, sections 25.205 and 25.206." This sentence was meant to specify that no alcoholic beverage license would be needed in order to operate such a store. It was not intended to mean that the operator of a brew-on-premises store could never be licensed to be a brewer in the same facility. In fact, there are provisions in section 340A. 33 that in our view clearly contemplate the possibility that the store operator could also be licensed as a brewer in that facility. The law provides that alcoholic beverages may not be sold or given to customers in t1�o St��° ~Lln�e�� l� ..� �ti,.. N,....... • a...� L , � it e v.t^.12r of �.a�c ic�. ^vi2 �i@iTil�es at.v1E 1tG1U� 1.118 appropriate liquor license." This would appear to recognize the possibility that the store owner could also be a licensee. Although the context implies that the store owner could have a retail license (because such a license is necessary in order to "sell to customers") , the significance here is that there is at least an implied recognition of the possibility that a licensed operation and a brew-on-premises store that needs no license could exist on the same premises. The law further provides that beer °brewed by a customer in the store must not be sold and must be used by the customer solely for S personal or family use." The fact that this prohibition is 788 Chartes Avenue, St. Paut, Minnesota 55104 � (612)224-6270 `�State Office Buitding, 100 ConsUtuUon Ave,St.Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298 (612)296-5158 House Fax(612)�6-1563 TDD(612)296-9g96 t1 � s� :r:�:� _ 9b--rd�� • directed against beer �rewed by a customer on the premises, and not against �], beer brewed on the premises, implicitly recognizes the possibility that beer could be brewed by someone other than a customer on the premises, and that the prohibition against resale applies only to customer-brewed beer. In summary, it is our view that the legislative intent behind section 340A. 33 would not preclude issuance of a license to the operator of a brew-on-premises store to operate as a brewer in the same facility. We hope these comments will be useful to you in interpreting the intent behind second 340A. 33 . Sincerel.y, / �y�/� � � Andy Dawkins State Representative • y4 � �� Sam Solon State Senator AD:BF c: Sen. Sandy Pappas � �� ZONING-CONII�IITTSB-STAFF-R$PORT � FILE # 96-098 1. APPLICANT: BREW AND BOTTLE INC. DATE OF HEARING: 06/06/96 2. CLASSIFICATION: Determination of Similar Use 3 . LOCATION: 242 7TH STREET WEST (east side between Walnut & Chestnut) 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SELY 25 ft of NELY 1/2 of Lot 8 and SELY 12 ft of Lot 9 and of SWLY 1/2 of Lot 8 and ex NWLY 20 ft for st, all of Lot 7, Block 27; Rice and Irvine's Addition Blocks 26 thru 41 46 thru 53 6. PRESENT ZONING: B-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §64.300 (g) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 5/30/96 BY: Kady Dadlez 8. DATE RECEIVfiD: 04/29/96 DEADLINS FOR ACTION: 6/27/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PURPOSE: Determination of Similar use to determine if a micro brewery is an accessory use to a brew on premise store. B. PARCEL SIZE: This irregularly shaped property has 60 feet of frontage on West 7th Street and is 150 feet in depth for a total lot area of 9,630 � square feet. C. EXISTING LAND USE: The property is occupied by a single-story commercial building which is currently being used as a brew on premises store. D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: The property is surrounded on the north, east, and west by a variety of commercial uses on West 7th Street in a B-3 zoning district and by residential uses to the south in an RM-2 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300 (g) of the zoning code states that when a specific use is not listed in a district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each district. The planning commission must make the findings detailed in finding #3 of this report. - F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There is one previous zoning case concerning this property. The case is from 1995 and involves a Determination of Similar Use request to determine whether a brew on premises store is allowed in a B-3 zoning district. The planning commission approved the application finding that it was similar to a combination retail and service establishment and is a permitted use in a B-3 general business zoning district. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RBCOI�IENDATION: The West 7th/Fort Road Federation does not intend to take a position on the determination of similar use application. H. FINDINGS• 1. The applicant operates a brew on premises store at this location � called Vine Park Brewery. This store caters to home-brewers of beer and furnishes the raw materials needed to create many beer styles and flavors. . � I �l�-��7 • Zoning File #96-098 Page Two The store's equipment can accommodate the brewing of six 15 gallon batches at one time and one large batch (60 to 100 gallons) . The applicant has found that there is no demand from the public for the larger equipment. He has also found that peak brewing times for the public are evenings and weekends. Therefore, the brewing facility is under utilized during the week days. During the off-peak times the applicant would like to be able to brew beer, using the larger equipment, and sell it directly to area restaurants and bars for retail sale at their establishments. There will be no sale directly to the public. The applicant expects to brew and sell no more than 2, 500 barrels per year, the limit likely to be imposed by the state. The applicant states that since his brewing equipment is designed to accommodate only six customers brewing and three bottling at any given time, the existing parking fulfills the store's needs. The proposed accessory use would not generate the need for any additional parking since the use would occur during off-peak times for the brew on premises store. 2. The state law that was created to allow the brew on premises store prohibits brewing for sale unless the owner holds the appropriate liquor licenses. The applicant is currently checking into city license requirements. The applicant is working with the State of Minnesota to ensure that state regulations will allow the micro brewery. It is likely that the state will restrict the hours during which the micro brewery can • operate and the number of barrels that can be brewed and sold per year, probably 2,500 barrels. 3. The planning commission must make the following findings in determining whether the use is similar to another: a. That the use is similar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. The principal use of the property is a brew on premise store, a use already determined to be appropriate for the B-3 zoning district. The applicant would like to expand his business and generate additional income by brewing beer during the off-peak times using the under utilized equipment. This is a reasonable extension of an existing brew on premises store use and an appropriate accessory use. b. That the traffic generated on such use is aim3lar to one or more of the pr3nc3pal uaes permitted. The applicant states that since his brewing equipment is designed to accommodate only six customers brewing and three bottling at any given time, the existing parking fulfills the store's needs. The proposed accessory use would not generate the need for any additional parking since the use would occur during off-peak times for the brew on premises store. The amount of traffic generated by this use is similar to a typical retail or service establishment. The proposed accessory use will not generate a need for additional off-street parking. � Za Zoning File #96-098 � Page Three c. That the use is not first permitted in a 2ess restrictive zoning district. Alcoholic beverages are first listed in Appendix B to the Zoning Code which lists industrial uses to show possible similar uses for the I-2 industrial district. However, the use proposed, a micro brewery, will be an accessory use to the existing brew on premises store, a principal use allowed in a B-3 zoning district. While a micro brewery is not a use listed in the zoning code, a brew on premises store is allowed in the B-3 zoning district. The accessory use would likely be limited by the State of Minnesota in terms of the amount of beer that can be brewed and sold and the times during which the beer is brewed. d. That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The brew on premises store is a retail/service business and is permitted in a B-3 zoning district. Provided the accessory use is restricted in terms of the amount of beer brewed, it is an appropriate accessory use to the existing brew on premise store. The accessory use is appropriate in a general business area which is intended to provide sites for more diversified types of businesses than those in B-1 and B-2 business districts and is intended for location along major traffic arteries or adjacent to community business districts. One of the goals for the commercial district in the West • 7th/Chestnut Small Area Plan calls for "new uses along West 7th Street to be a continuation of already successful uses, such as restaurants, pubs, antique stores, and local service shops that serve neighborhood, local, and regional markets" p.10. I. STAFF RECOI�II�iENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staff recommends approval of the determination of similar use finding that the proposed micro brewery is an accessory use to the brew on premises store, subject to the following conditions: 1. The beer brewed by the micro brewery shall not be sold directly to the public. 2 . The micro brewery shall not brew more than 2,500 barrels per year. 3 . The micro brewery use shall be accessory to the brew on premises store. � 21 - ZZ ua6e /(�i� . � a�ea a�n�eu6is_s,�ue�i�ddy . ❑ pay�e�e si ue�d a;is pa�mba� . � ��ouisip 6uiuoz ani��i��sa� ssa� e ui pa�liw�ad �pea��e asn ay� s� p • aaa��r,�ab �q �)!✓�► y�ra�yd� �-6�roi��aV� �N -oaJ�a��►'a� aFi 7y�n� �».�f�d'� 7�ap11144�/ oN �sasn pal�iw�ad a�ow ao auo �(q pale�aua6 �i}�e�� oi �e�i�.uis aie�aua6 ��inn asn ay� �ey� oi}�e�� ay� s� �J �ha�a�aa�Fi Qa�� -� ac� ��m as�i tia�m�sa»� shar�r�?J9' �a�a� arii� �as,wa d�c� Nn� Ma�b� � s� �� r�i 7�c�1�/y2/d r,�a�ar�a2�S a�v-�� a rv�� ouisip 6uiuoz ay� ui palliw�ad sasn �edi�ui�d ay� �o a�ow �o auo ol �ai�e�ey� ui �e�iwis asn ay� s� � •(�(�essa�au �i s�aays �euoilipp� y��ile) uoi�ew�o�ui 6uinno��o� ayl apinad �NOI1dWaO�NI JNIlaOddflS 3 "� ' - � asn pasodad I a 1 asn �ua�n� �as� �e�iwig�o uoi�euii.wa�aa e �o� apo� 6wuoZ ay��yde�6e�ed `OOE uoi��ag '�g �a}dey� �o suoisinad ay� �apun apew �(qa�ay si uoi�e�i�ddy :1S3f1D321 • (�Gessa�au��aays �euoi�ippe y�e��e) �_ Q 6uiuoZ �uaaan� vn�r a?�y� . � ��or� PL �vy �o -►t� ':�s v�r � , o �, � v ry� �> >o , �,s �� :uoi�dia�sap �e6a� .�oy �o r� �, s an� g o� ,v � � ��aN�v,s� �r3s NOIld�O� � � -M ��o uoi�e�o�/ssa�ppy �1a3d02ld �S��auoyd �S �.�C� �� (�ua�a�ip �i) uos�ad ��e�uo� (�ua�a}}ip �i) �aunno�o aweN �� -�auoyd awi��(ea -�o�S s d!ZnJ(,�,/'lS 7'�t/� `-�-� �}!� '� x� � �1'i �°F/ �° ssa�PPt1 a�a r�a�l� ��y� �.h1n b �� a N 3 y 10 3 rh 3 �j aweN 1Nd�ilddd S - � 68 9 99Z n ur n n >::Y:::>:; :::>:<:::>::>:<:<::<;!. Z07SS A�t1l 1 d 1 . S `;`::;±:>;;».;;:.;.:;:.;.;>:.;;;;;;;;;>;:.; '::>::>>� >:;::»:::<:::::>::::::>::i>.>:::::<:::<:>:::«:<><::: aaa �no sa ;::»:<::<;:;::>::;:::>:;>::>::»: >:::<::::::::><>::>::>::>::;::>::::> >::::»:>:>:a>:«::>:::;:>::»::> J lS �/7 .d J M SZ >::::::>'�� ,>>��., � `.,...: : .::::»:. ;:::::>:>�:::>�>:<:::>:;::<�:::>;:<;;;:��:,,;>l�l��l�i��,�,;,;: .�� uu�'IInH�? 0077 � uo��a 8u�uo <`>::�$` '>:: 1 '.;<.::°;::>: �.::. . S . Z ` �� . --i��, �,--;,,,,, ; luau�doJana��rurouo��pun Suruuvld Io juau�1mdaQ i o� a�i� �b�* �� o asn ��,r�v �u�uo� N011t��llddt�l 3Sf1 lit�IIIWIS �O NOIlHNIWt1313a ��vi- �6 - _ - �Z � -�a� w--�..L �s a M ,W� . _ . . � �� d � � -- - -------- � ,�-0-� ; � � o , �_.___ _ _ _._ � __'N_'__ W , a ' '__ � O' Cfl 41 ,.�- ! , w , ,,: Y � � u " ':• I- � '---____ .--- �.' � .. ; ,. _.. --------------, ; , zo . ;; O: g � ; ,.. , ;; . : � . ,, :, . ., . . oo -------._____. --- : � ., , : : . . -----.------ o _ _. ..__ : o � �` i a ; � . . . . _------ ---- _ _... ----- � i � � i._....------- ---- � �---------� --- - .O .� �_ a—_� __.—� �T � � -- � w '_ + � ..� :-----------, W � ' � ' �--�------- � ;--�----� i � � !---------�� ... , � � T O M N � ,� Q 5" �� M � G � r• T = `� Tt L • N H U 0 7 W � � � M Q ,- � y� p��&S N: �� .n �W X� �� ' s W Y � _. X' s�l �{�� 1�-/�7� ...4..tw .� • .o�r .a �., 'v a � ' � � �, i � w�n�w wt F "' a 4 z 10 � yy � x 2 R T d �QM � ; � 'wtllV � � � ! M M 12 • } 7� 5 CO"G �untu0 ri }� a � �iw'lM0 M �.M'�iw � 4� �� Z }( � � I4�� ]f „ CASt St i � ~ x W!R �[4 �,�� _� .�.� Y # � p� ; � c � ,.,n � a a � �� ,. X� ...�.r... .,. � „ ^ � � � � 7 N F � � � ».a».. ... � � l M R y � k 3 = w.c�arv � k � 3 s x . � \ 1 � y � ,� � � 1 M I.Y . �lWL 4E 'b, µ � i 2 � YItI M[ . �� W � '� F �'i �ai..��\ +r�' �. y'4 lw�r .t '� � \ n � , ti�ro � \ � � � � s L � 4 � � ,� 4 � � �r a.w we ��Q �r y'°bf� Pi Q A \ `` '3 O : i '` ^�M 14 =«. ,� + � � 'i `, ; �a ��d we � g ,r. �� „ � ; � . �.�. +e $ R f, � '� 4 1� � ' �. � 4 Y ` � '.. .d � e -``�� ° F ��',' ("� �' � � ; '� � a .w� ..w. z �.q '....�`P G w r. aa = S1 e ...e.�.aa s- i � � b A d rov � r..r. t .t ' � ° �$� � �� Y \`, �� ..�..K.. � � � �� «.� a ..` ,\ � � .�' /: ,� • � p �� / �� '�\ /i \1 ' J / ` � ' �— �' e �mo .om �mo rter \ �a�� . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PI.ANNING DISTRICTS 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE , 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8 VERSITY 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARK 13. NiERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHI.�ND � 16. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN ZONING FILE ��a � Zq - r � — �4- __,� L �i )� � . _- � , �i_ i � G s L l� � , . .>a . '...L �t i.- � '-..—i� � � i!f,=t- IL :r— � ��1 ` �'�F�..� � ?/ i � "�/� . 't /%,vi_i Y � —,•;-_�:�r_._1 ��{ -�'r,�.-F:::.� i�1 r �.F' :�/�' � i ':r� - J �,c_' � 7,_._. � � � I a/ � �� ,� '( �: _� .�._..� 6 �_$---8----� . '_'� ° �-f ��—' �t. . _� I'/ ' �� . :,��.___,_� � ; =...�-��i�r-�`_ �: ...±� � Ot-��.�D�,�,..��✓,' �- ,f,��. �� , / ;� ��-,... � `� r— �--- :.- -t ,• �—� ' < � �c� - �c-�-i'��I�'_��l_.._J��},r_y (,�,u {'�.•/�1`Vr ' ��'.{� � . ��.• .,...-_'�.___ JC �i �'� �._,��--. �• JJ ��ti y�'��: / ��! lr��;�� ' .'I1'•/ ,s ` �i�. � I f J �� / � � � _L[e- -�..� _i��..a� �t.- _ -_i4 -�L`�.-.��• �.--�L_�•��\,��'� �� .�L� � i�yl '� ' ��, � ,� J��-�1�� r f � ._.._.�.•'� —,�i�...i��7C .�"�C=_,i`" �:fi�."�"� c� • � �, 1i.�3i_`1�;::;._ J i.� %' �� ,s.� ��T�.._�.:� �.-..'�_:.��._,j ��;.°5'�,.� �-�[��C�_��- , J , �.�� . �� -—- -w _— �j . ,P�- ..1L_ J1.1�._d y'""�' r=-�t � • —�� __- =�:.�a ,��- - _ jo l,/ ;'�� I ��i�/�� i � /� .... ��-?:ti _-- ' ,,. r' -T.LJ�;��7y" ;; ✓, ��.�.;.v- -�f -- � -_--� - =_ ^ y'' ��(��'� �',/.� `:� r••r.. .• `,' , •�=K--=`� �._ ♦ `i ^s~'7 � ,� J �+a{.� �/� /" . �aut-- _ � � \\ �� 11!I�3�� f,�•'!� " ��.i---��— _�,�,,�� .\;� J�� (� LdJ +' /p/�" - —_—_ '�= .._��,''��__a` _ � _:U�C_��CLI�f'�_,= ��i j� ,��; U�'�==_=--_ • -R+,�.• `•*' � ,' 'r.--•..: _r—_=y ---__��-:�_' � _.��'�T�fl��'�UL.I�[�,�!��.' ��;-��_�=_ y� .� r--�^^:-("'�3 ��•// �' .I�-'-�'yiy �.._�'�_-="'_.isn.=-� - _ - =-�_��I'L'.!'�L�l/.'•��'LLI � / i��..._��_ __ _ � / �� V � V • • % �� L�t.S /� � \ �� ( ` / � �� / • � � �,��: � \ F1FTH ' ��'✓ ?� ,�; � J-,` � ,� / � P - � � / � \ r�� / I �\' C�v ' � �� / ,, 0, . , o _ �� .�' � r � � � . i • • ry � . /'� ' ^rO J� � �� ' \ � �'\ �/ y ,r� �,� � \ `,�` �, . . '� � ''� i ��j ./•. ..C�1 � \\\ OQ'�i. O(� � ��. , ~ b ` � Q ��i �� \� �� _ '.Q �. •` ` � � �' ` Q a. . L .�P �� a ,' , �� e �� pao SQ� Fp �- �j� � .�•,�" ► ,' Q �>? , �� o �,o �,�c 'Q�; �'� . . � s . +� , , ��' .��• .. � �, � "• ',' • ,`' ,• � ,/ �� 5� p � �- . . ,' � ,< •� � ' Q • � d : . Gj �` . . � � � . � �` \ � s \ ` ` , 0 � y � . � � � �`;.;; q �� Q � `\ . ; ,� �•, v � sy. ., � �� o . � m �` .� � , , �P� ., , Q C�, ;�5 T.1 LS `�. �' �j' \ / �� ` �! .� Q �i . . � �r/ - . �' � , ��" � � � � _.� .... •o �� , � Q �� , � � • --• .'� ��.y / , �`J RAN C� 1 � • '_ ,' � : � • � ' . �� f t. , � � �s�r ': ��' -�` . � � .� � . — = t _l �'� . ��. �. �' -�., •� J ) "')�-' •W ._'_••_ ,C • / ,� '�•' � ~.�`,� .�` . _.— 5 E E S � / „ � �-�-- __ i ••`, /� i � y /,� - -__ .... / � .. /�/� / •. a' � � . _ . APPLICANT_ ��'V I I� ��S�t,1 - B�► 9, �1T1.�` LEGEND PURPOSE Y �V �� zoning district boundary • D �E #_ qb �� DATE � 'Z9•�(� � subject property . n� orthi PLNG. DIST � MAP# 2 l o one family • • � commercial � ¢ two family � .�� industrial SCALE 1" = 400' � A � .,,�.�._,. `(p -¢-Q multiple family V vacant^ � .